Ah, the Turing Test for Marlowe. :)

Post #57,826 by a6l6e6x 10/19/02 1:20:46 PM Reply	Ah, the Turing Test for Marlowe. :) [link\|http://www.oxy.edu/departments/cog-sci/courses/1998/cs101/texts/Computing-machinery.html\|Link.] Alex "I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which this margin is too narrow to contain. -- Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)
Post #57,830 by inthane-chan 10/19/02 1:33:00 PM Reply	Hey, just post it after every comment he makes. Same text, and link back to this comment. Maybe someday you'll get a rise out of him, and he'll actually do more than a hit and run, but somehow I doubt it... End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #58,103 by dmarker 10/21/02 7:30:49 PM Reply	Re: The case against it being human ... Has so far failed to ever respond to a direct challenge that pointed out blatant contradictions in its logic. Part of my case against it is the it has done more to drive the consensus here against Bush & republicans than any other poster, yet its goal is clearly to promote them. This point leads me to the 'Tar Baby' theory. We all keep hitting the Marlowe tar baby because of its silence (intelligent replys to direct challenges) is so insulting & infutiating. This is a classic 'bot' pattern as happened with the last known bot (in IWE). When most of us here accuse someone of something we will at least try to justify the accusation & will usually respond to the accused - Marlowe makes an accusation & when asked what statement or line prompted the accusation never replies, (because usually there is no logical reply it can give). Marlowe rarely answers to the specific point another poster raises. Its responses tend to be very very generalised. So my actions at the moment are (I confess) smacking the 'tar baby' with a 10 x 4 (and predictably getting no response). Cheers Doug
Post #58,138 by ben_tilly 10/21/02 8:29:19 PM Reply	That is not true At least not in past fun and games. Read these threads: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30593\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=30593] [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=30810\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=30810] While Marlowe made his share of blunders, and had trouble admitting to being wrong, he demonstrated that he isn't a bot. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #58,139 by deSitter 10/21/02 8:31:54 PM Reply	I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that -drl
Post #58,173 by Ashton 10/21/02 10:54:17 PM Reply	Case proven, but.. Of late - Recall that Steve O'Conner (Oz) launched N.I.C.E. and Jerry ___? The bot is not its author. So I don't doubt there is an intelligence out there, but his/its current game is mere stimulus/response; nothing like debate. The Hotentott Rule? (But from your link - throughout a variety of propositions the dead-Certainty of opinion remained intact. EZ target that certainty stuff, especially about humans and their 'motives'.) Ashton Besides I recognize my Gramma - feed her boilerplate into 32-bit Eliza and Voila! ;-)
Post #58,179 by dmarker2 10/21/02 11:38:44 PM Reply	Re: Yup Ben - gotta agree Those threads add 10 points back to Marlowe not being a N.I.C.E. bot <grin> Cheers Doug

Welcome to IWETHEY!